Developing a social justice framework for monitoring student

Developing a social justice framework for monitoring student learning engagement My Inclusive University Seminar 4 October 2011 Professor Karen Nelson (Project Leader) Tracy Creagh (Project Manager) Australian Learning and Teaching Council Project CG 10 -1730 2011 -2012

Presentation Overview • • • Background to the project Project overview Developing the principles Small group activity Feedback and discussion Discussion Feedback Activity

“Higher education can transform the lives of individuals and through them their communities and the nation by engendering a love of learning for its own sake and a passion for intellectual discovery”. Bradley, Noonan, Nugent & Scales (2008) Review of Australian Higher Education: Final Report

Why is a social justice framework needed. . . ?

Disengagement Failure Attrition ? Engagement Success Retention

Model of Student Engagement Input / Presage Factors Student Factors Individual Contextual Institutional Context Curriculum Institution Teacher Factors Individual Contextual Transformation Process Institutional Experiences Curriculummediated & Cocurricular Output / Product Factors Students & Staff Knowledge Skills Attitudes Actions The Individual and Institutional Characteristics Influencing Student Retention and Engagement (IICISRE) Model (Nelson, Kift and Clarke (2011)

Aspiration, Opportunity & Access Alumni Transition to Work / Industry / Post Graduate Later Year Experiences Offer & Enrolment Orientation & Transition into University First Year Experiences

? (E. g. Krause et al, 2005; Scott, 2006; Yorke & Longden, 2008; Kift, 2009) ü Preparedness ü Finances ü Alignment of expectations & experiences ü Course choice certainty ü Contact with staff ü Course design & assessment ü Feedback, early, timely and constructive

Some words of advice “stop tinkering at the margins of institutional academic life and make enhancing student success the linchpin about which they organize their activities. . . and [to] establish those educational conditions on campus that promote the retention of students, in particular those of low-income backgrounds”. Tinto, V (2009) Taking Student Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First Year of University. Keynote address delivered at the ALTC FYE Curriculum Design Symposium, QUT, Brisbane, Australia, February 5, 2009.

g n i g n a h t c n e e h t d u se t i s n g f. o o g c. e s s e ( R u n p r t e n m t a e t c pa agem & onl g e v n e k, tra r o w ) e tim Yorke, M. & Thomas, L. , 2003

titu l a n tio in e tiv r ’ o s t p a n p e e t u d a s u e , of st s i Cr e t t a a s h y t m a cli ious w ent, dly’; m n p e var i o r l f ‘ e v s a e d ived s n i n e c r pe Yorke, M. & Thomas, L. , 2003

s s e n g n i l l i ! w e A hang c o t Yorke, M. & Thomas, L. , 2003

Monitoring Engagement • At QUT – progressive development of a system to monitor and intervene with students at risk of disengaging – the Student Success Program • • Nelson, Karen J. , Quinn, Carole, Marrington, Andrew, & Clarke, John A. (2011) Good practice for enhancing the engagement and success of commencing students. Higher Education. Online First 30 March, available at http: //www. springerlink. com/content/atn 87 g 2 q 3 l 2522 x 4/ Nelson, Karen J. , Duncan, Margot E. , & Clarke, John A. (2009) Student success : the identification and support of first year university students at risk of attrition. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 6(1), pp. 1 -15. • High levels of interest from the sector, e. g. , Deakin, Monash, University of Auckland, Griffith University, Uni. SA, RMIT, Charles Sturt, Griffith, University of Queensland, Curtin, Edith Cowan. . .

Student Success Program (SSP) SSP Advisors Specialist Support “Warm Hand. On” to rral Refe ing t Exis ices Serv Descriptive Information Student Activities “Outreach” Contact Mgt System FYE Consultant Academic Skills Advisers Careers and Employment International Students Services Existing student support (e. g. ) Manager SSP “students at-risk” reports FYE & Retention Coord Contact Information Limited information Counselling Course Coordinators Equity Services Faculty student services Faculty programs Learning support gateway Oodgeroo Unit Peer Advisers (Library) Student Guild Student Services Workshops & seminars

6000 SSP Activity 2008 -2011 5000 4000 Int. Stud. Progress Offers 3000 Welcome Academic Perf. 2000 Cohort Learning Engagement 1000 0 2008 -S 2 2009 -S 1 2009 -S 2 2010 -S 1 2010 -S 2 2011 -S 1

Impact on Persistence (within semester) Learning Engagement Campaign 2008 -2010 2008 2009 Total 4487 % 6220 number of students Students 1254/140 776/1083 71. 7 1 “At-Risk “ “At-risk” 448/527 85. 0 395/419 & contacted At risk 328/556 59. 0 859/982 not contacted Not at risk 2960/340 87. 0 4332/481 2010 % 19, 685 % 89. 5 787/865 91. 0 2817/3349 84. 1 94. 3 328/356 92. 1 1, 171/1, 30 1 89. 9 4591/50 9 90. 2 1, 646/2, 04 7 80. 4 87. 5 89. 9 8978 Total 7398/81 % 91. 2 14690/163 89. 9

Project objectives and outcomes The key objective of this project is to: • lead the establishment of good practice for the Australasian HE sector in monitoring student engagement What we aim to do: • design and develop a set of guiding principles for MSLE illustrated by annotated examples of good practice • making available a set of resources to support learning and teaching policy and practice for monitoring student engagement. • design and develop a good practice guide for MSLE that reflects the expertise of personnel in existing good practice programs;

Project Universities • • Auckland University of Technology Queensland University of Technology University of New England Curtin University of Technology Charles Sturt University of South Australia Edith Cowan University RMIT University

Project Approach Good Practice for Monitoring Student Engagement Establish Project Repository • Action Research Cycle 1: Develop the MSE Principles & Exemplars Good practice Guide & Resources • Action Research Cycle 2: Develop the exemplars and resources • Action Research Cycle 3: Pilot Good Practice Guide Final Suite of Resources in Repository

Literature analysis SJ Principles • Requires examination of the concept of Justice • E. g. Kant, Rawls, Miller, Rizvi, Young, Wollstonecraft, Mill & Marx. . . • Two ‘traditions‘– liberal individualist & social democratic • No single view of social justice but consistent reference to human rights, fairness and equality. • Consensus that key elements include: equity of access to social & material goods, equal participation in society, measured by equal performance and outcomes, equal liberty and rights. • Critique by Amartya Sen (2009) further considered transcendent institutionalism & reasoned difference.

Social Justice & Education • Distributive & retributive perspectives (liberal-individualists) have some shared characteristics (Gale, 2000) – Tendency to be concerned with people’s assets (including social goods, e. g. Opportunity, power) rather than social processes which (re)produce those assets – Limits just distribution of goods to some sort of statistical modelling – Regards all people as the same – a utopian hegemony ‘tend to be interested in economics and ignore social institutions’ • Marginson (2011) - tensions in equity policy & measures of success of equity policy and programs framed in terms of the type of strategy – Fairness – strategies to change the composition of participation HE representative of society – Inclusion – strategies to broaden the access and completion of under represented social groups.

Developing a Philosophical Stance • Self- • . determination does not mean separate determination • Socially just processes – are necessarily democratic • ‘Groups’ need to be represented and their views to be engaged with as part of the decision making processes • Therefore we have taken a social democratic stance that emphasises process and action over state and form

Recognitive Social Justice • Positive regard for social difference • Centrality of socially democratic processes in working towards achievement • Focus on procedural issues of participation in deliberation and decision making • Recognised when – the ways in which groups of students are identified and the extent to which all those involved in the social process are involvement in their own development and the purpose of the process • Does not abandon but informs interests central to distributive and retributive perspectives

Social justice in HE Using perspectives of social justice to frame the MSLE principles (Gale, 2000 p. 268) Perspectives The will What should social justice of Justice desire? Whose desire? Distributive Recognitive Freedom, social cooperation and compensation. Individuals/ groups represented by govt / authorities Liberty, protection of rights, punishments for infringements. Individuals in free market. Means for all to exercise capability and determine their actions. All people within and among social groups To render How should social justice be achieved? Proportional distribution Open competitive and govt protection of life and property To everyone Who should social justice benefit? Disadvantaged individuals groups Their due What should social justice deliver? Basic material & social goods /opportunities Individuals who Material & social contribute to goods / society opportunities commensurate with talent and effort Democratic All people Positive selfprocesses that differently identity. Self include / generalize experienced development; self from the interests within and determination. of the least among social advantaged groups

Draft Social Justice Principles for MSLE SELFDETERMINATION: Programs embrace democratic processes, self identification and case management through students ‘opting-in’. EQUITY: The provision of support and services takes into account the hidden curriculum of institutions and individuals educational, cultural and social backgrounds. ACCESS: Universities must ensure that systems and structures are in place to actively identify and intervene with students at risk of disengaging to ensure access to services and support for those students who require it. PARTICIPATION: The program should actively enable and promote participation in university life and should improve the quality of engagement and the quantity of connections. RIGHTS: All students have the right to be treated with dignity and respect and to have their individual cultural and social backgrounds valued.

Workshop Activity Small group discussion Consider how the draft principles relate to the HE context? How will these principles benefit : Students? QUT / Institutions? Discussion Feedback

Developing a social justice framework for monitoring student learning engagement My Inclusive University Seminar 4 October 2011 Professor Karen Nelson (Project Leader) Tracy Creagh (Project Manager) Australian Learning and Teaching Council Project CG 10 -1730 2011 -2012